the answer is...

The Society is not responsible for any statement made or opinion expressed herein. Data and information developed by the authors
are for specific informational purposes only and are not intended for use without independent, substantiating investigation on the
part of potential users.

ANSWERED BY
KENNETH ERICKSON & KIP MANKENBERG

Q: We have an upcoming AWS D1.1
project for which the project specifi-
cation requires ultrasonic testing
(UT) to be performed on open root
butt splice joints (girth welds) in 8-
and 10-in. round tubular members.
The thicknesses of these members
range from 12 to 1 in. Can this be per-
formed using the techniques
required by Section 6 of the code?
A: Though Section 6, paragraph 6.20.1,
does not exclude this joint configuration
for the testing techniques required by
Sections 6.21 through 6.26, this particu-
lar application would be better examined
using a Section 6.27/Annex K technique.
To list two reasons why this is the case,
the diameters of the tubular members
involved would likely not permit full cou-
pling of the search units required by
paragraphs 6.22.6 and 6.22.7, and para-
graph 6.27.6 could require the use of
search unit angles that are not specified
in Table 6.7. I would recommend that a
UT procedure be developed as stated in
the first paragraph of Section 6.27, and
that approval of the engineer be obtained
as required by paragraph 6.20.2.
Q: Do the as-fit-up tolerances of the
prequalified joint details of AWS
D1.1 Figs. 3.3 and 3.4 add to the
as-detailed tolerances?
A: The short answer to this question
would be yes. Section 2 of the Code, with
regard to the Contractor, requires that
shop drawings shall clearly indicate by
welding symbols or sketches the details
of groove welded joints and the prepara-
tion of base metal required to make
them. The code also allows the use,
within certain limitations, of the prequal-
ified joint details shown in Figs. 3.3 (par-
tial joint penetration) and 3.4 (complete
joint penetration).
It would certainly seem to make
sense in most cases for the contractor to
take advantage of the as-detailed toler-
ances allowed by Figs. 3.3 and 3.4, and to
put those in the shop drawings. The
code then allows the as fit-up toler-
ances to be applied to the dimensions
shown on the detail drawing.
Q: Recently on a high-profile build-
ing project, I rejected a weld visual-
ly for a longitudinal surface crack.
The project structural engineer indi-
cated that I should not utilize the
term crack on any report or in
conversation until this has been ver-
ified through NDE inspection. This
leaves me confused, as the AWS
visual acceptance criteria clearly
indicate and reference crack prohi-
bition and the term crack as one
of the discontinuity categories for
inspection. In addition, there was no
NDE required on this weld other
than visual inspection.
A: I have heard this same comment from
both project engineers and NDE Level
III individuals for many years. The term
crack raises a warning flag and consti-
tutes a more serious situation than the
more common inherent welding discon-
tinuities such as porosity or undercut. A
crack indicates that there is a potential
breakdown attributable to the welding
procedure, welder or welding operator,
materials, filler metal, assembly, heat
treatment, or a number of other vari-
ables that may have contributed to this
condition. If the welding procedures and
the welders have been qualified, and all
other variables are correct, then it is
hoped this is only an isolated condition
and not a generic finding.
Visual welding reports may be
reviewed by several individuals and the
information contained needs to stand
alone and be as accurate as possible.
There is a cost and time factor attributed
to all rejected welds, and welds reported
as cracked can lead to additional costs
and loss of time.
Every potential crack condition needs
to be researched and investigated to
determine the cause and corrective
action for proper resolution. The term
crack is at times overused and misun-
derstood. Indications that appear to be
cracks or crack like may, in reality, not
be cracks at all. I have been witness to
CWIs visually reporting grinding
scratches, surface delaminations, and
sharp areas of nonfusion as cracks. NDE
inspectors have also reported cracks in
welds that later were determined not to
be cracks at all.
CWIs can and should report disconti-
nuities as cracks in accordance with the
visual acceptance criteria when factual
evidence indicates that a crack is present.
CWIs can also request that further sur-
face NDE testing, such as magnetic par-
ticle and/or liquid penetrant, be per-
formed on any suspect weld to accurately
evaluate and verify that a crack is pre-
sent. Inspectors should believe what you
see and be accurate in what you report.
Q: Are building threshold inspec-
tors able to visually inspect welds for
final visual compliance?
A: Yes, and the key word here is able.
This is happening to this day on projects
throughout the countr y. Threshold
inspectors are commonly confused as
also being Certified Welding Inspectors
and thus accept welds routinely. There
are threshold inspectors who also do
possess a current CWI endorsement but
most do not.
Project specifications referencing
structural steel quality control require-
ments regarding personnel and testing
may not specifically call out for certified
individuals. Certain projects may only
call out for a building threshold inspec-
tor to cover all required inspections
including welding and never reference
any personnel certifications. This has

Inspection Trends encourages question and answer submissions. Please mail to the editor (mjohnsen@aws.org).

KENNETH ERICKSON is manager of quality at National Inspection & Consultants, Inc., Ft. Myers, Fla. He is an AWS Senior
Certified Welding Inspector, an ASNT National NDT Level III Inspector in four methods, and provides expert witness review and
analysis for legal considerations.

CLIFFORD (KIP) MANKENBERG is a welding engineer/NDT Level III for Oldenburg Group, Inc., Rhinelander, Wis. He is an AWS
Senior Certified Welding Inspector and an ASNT National NDT Level III Inspector in five methods.

30 INSPECTION TRENDS
always been a discrepant issue for us as
all the welders and welding procedures
need to be qualified but not the welding
inspector.
Specifications may include statements
such as a qualified testing agency or
competent threshold inspector or even
a degreed engineer. All these are com-
mon generic statements utilized that per-
mit companies to provide less qualified
and uncertified inspection and testing
personnel on a project.
Owners, engineering companies, and
general contractors have all been subject
to inadequate inspection and testing ser-
vices due to incomplete and inaccurate
project specifications coupled with
inspection companies that are skilled in
recognizing these so-called incomplete
and gray areas.
SUMMER 2006 31
Project specifications need to be clear
and accurate on their requirements and
documentation process including
personnel certifications. Companies and
individuals who are super vising and
enforcing these requirements need
to be knowledgeable and recognize
which individuals and companies can
perform what services and for what
applications.